Rob van Riel wrote:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote in message ...

However, the speed advantage was offset by the G-limitation of the
airframe. It was limited to something like 3Gs, which meant that it was
vulnerable to SAMs. Phantoms were often able to outmanoeuvre an
approaching SAM, but for a less agile aircraft like the Vigilante, this
would have been much more difficult.


I'm not too sure about this. I seem to remember reading about an
unauthorised "dogfight" between an A-5 and an F-4 (as I recall, the
A-5 was intercepted by F-4s during an exercise, and rather than
playing dead, decided to pretend it had a gun and went after his
attacker). The F-4 was not pleased with the things the A-5 did to
him...
If this is true, the agility of the A-5 would be better than you imply
here.


My knowledge about it is decidedly second hand. As I wrote, that was
part of an exchange between some naval officers in a letter somebody
posted to ramn a few weeks ago. It stated that the Vigilante airframe
was stressed for 3Gs.
It did have a reputation of being not very sturdy. I'm fairly certain
quite a few airframes were write-offs because of being over stressed
during landings.


Of course, I might be totally confused, or the report may have been a
legend. Can anyone confirm this?

Rob


It could very well be that it did happen, though, the way you describe
it, the Phantom crew allowed themselves to be surprised. That doesn't
tell you anything about the agility of the Vigilante, perhaps with the
exception that this Phantom crew underestimated it.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg